But comments will be rejected if they distort or misrepresent the evidence; are defamatory; or if they risk embroiling me, as publisher, in defamation proceedings. And you talk about truth? This seems to have been the end of Marquise's active involvement in the Lockerbie case save for occasionally reassuring Giaka that he was a wanted and valued resource. No clue as to just how deep these claws of deception and control really dig. Perhaps it was only convincing the Grand Jury that mattered. How important is the credibility of Giaka? It used to be that nobody was paid any money. Richard Marquise is fair game - he published a book and thus made money off of this.
I was just referring on the tight-lipped response I've seen him give in the past. If Giaka's evidence had been true, these inferences would have been legitimate. It is to help protect their country from crime and other threats. In order to document the facts of the investigation, Marquise wrote a non-fiction account of the international terrorism case. Marquise is an expert in the fields of counter terrorism and crisis management, both as an investigator and as a manager. I suppose not giving the name allows him some wiggle room to say he meant Bollier had lied in court, and who could deny that? Meeting took place in December.
Marquise at Arlington in front of the Carin memorializing the victims of Flight 103. Anyone who lies to a jourmalist must be guilty of mass murder, is that it? I regret the necessity of moderation but it has been rendered inevitable by the behaviour of a particular commentator whose contributions will always and without exception be rejected. She even volunteered her evidence, and it was just as important and just as completely non-incriminating, though that's another story as Tony Gauci's. What was Giaka's suppposed plan? Marquise and back up your claims in a credible manner. Could you please publish report on? So, once Giaka's evidence was dismissed, why did the judges convict? However, if you have read the transcript of the trial and the court's opinion, the court dismissed much of his testimony, which I think was wrong and I discuss it in my book.
I take the view that the Western authorities were prepared to accept the destruction of a single airliner as retaliation for the Vincennes Incident as opposed to the destruction of several planes and the further escalation of the crisis. You had and still have a duty to at least acknowledge where the investigation was misled or could have made mistakes. One would think he would totally refrain from posting comments if he is not willing to clarify matters he posts about. In this they had the 100% support of the British Government and successive British Prime Ministers. A I don't remember exactly. But I think he meant Mr.
Intelligence community of information handed over by the man Giaka. We didn't talk about this subject. We had other evidence, to do with the timer, withheld using Data Protection law. Marquise's mind, if a witnesses says they can't rememember, particularly when signalled to say so by someone in the audience, does that constitute a lie under oath? Its criminal work started with a story claimed that there had been a complaint of sexual harassment with a Egyptian woman against Lamen Fhimah. Related collections include: National Law Enforcement Museum Oral Histories: Administrative Information Preferred Citation Richard A. I'd love to read your book if you have an extra copy you could send me.
Marquise holds a Masters degree from the George Washington University. If you want to keep up on the latest developments in the case - political and legal - this is the site to watch. However I had not been aware of the enthusiasm with which he embraced a fraudulent version of events, put up Majid Giaka as a credible witness, and like his Scottish counterparts ignored compelling evidence that would have led to a true solution of the crime. In Fraser's own words, Gauci could not be trusted. This article raises an interesting question. The more information emerged, the more these various versions fell over like dominoes. If Khreesat was the bomb-maker this would indicate official foreknowledge of the bombing.
Marquise holds a Masters degree from the George Washington University. I did not see the fragment on that trip. Q You are a liar, Mr. His stories were central to the 1991 indictments, but were famously dismissed, and rightly so, by the judges at Camp Zeist for being unrealiable in a number of ways. Publications were removed and added to the Pan Am Flight 103 Publications Collection. Presumably Mr Marquise thought he was involved in a straight-forward Criminal investigation, with the object of finding out who actually planned and carried out the bombing and proving it in court. Two hundred and seventy people were killed.
A reward for a good lead to a perpetrator whose guilt can be proven by independent means is one thing - usually offered to criminals to grass on their mates of course. While Lockerbie was supposedly just another count on Gaddafi's rap sheet it was in actuality part of the campaign to overthrow him. The start-to-finish story has never been told and will not ever be told other than by the author because of his unique position. You've many times addressed the matter of payments to witnesses. There is one other thing I wondered about after Mr.